yes palakaboy was talking to bob. bob replayed to me about images,I as for a link, because Nikon didn't put of any pictures over 640 iso.(untouched) For a top notch camera you would think Nikon would post pictures showing the noise level,but as it is just have to wait till people put there hands on it to see the real results.

Just a quick calculation regarding file-sizes of videos:
I think that with good compression you need 15Mbit/sec ~ 100MByte / minute ~ 3GB for the max recording length of 30 minutes.
I.e. a 16GB card should be good for 2h of recording.
So this should not be influenced by the number of pixels on the sensor.

Maybe it's 150MByte/minute. But still you're talking about rougly 16GB for 2h of footage.
---
On another note: Ken (Rockwell, that is) is going gaga over the D800. Quote: "Actually, I'm opting for the D800E because I test lenses for a living." Now there he totally looses it, although he brags about being an engineer and all. If you test lenses or any other equipment transforming analog real-world signals into the digital domain you would want to avoid aliasing artifacts like the devil. Because they introduce false signals into your test-results and invalidate them.
So much for sound, scientifically approved test setups Expect some serious bragging from Ken about the ultimate in sharpness that he has found without knowing whether he was seeing artifacts or real resolution. Sad!
That's why I have ordered the D800 with the AA-filter intact. To bring you real images without artifacts and such-like.

Aliasing is bad if you don't know what the original is. If you do know what something is supposed to be, then you can unravel it, to a degree anyway. Imatest as is popularly used by most lab lens testers can see past the nyquist, presumably by making such analysis.

I'm not a follower of Ken, but isn't he of the "real world test" philosophy? In that case, aliasing may be a bigger issue.

I've never see him shoot test-diagrams. Which would be good, because: In a well structured test-diagram you can pretty clearly identify when artifacts appear, because you know what the subject looks like.
In real world shots (say of fine twigs in trees or grass) you have no idea when you're seeing artifacts or real twigs. That's the problem.

While preparing for the "unboxing video" of the D800 I found out that my Canon HF 100 HD vid-cam doesn't accept the 16GB SD card any longer: I just ejected the card to have a look at its capacity because I could re-use it in my (future) D800. When I tried to put the card back into the slot it would no longer lock inside the slot: it just keeps jumping back out. That should be a simple mechanical problem, but it's sad to see a 600 EUR cam being disabled by such a simple problem.
But back to the D800: the video capabilities of the cam are very welcome as I sometimes simply like to shoot a short video of a scene.
So in principle I should be well equipped to do the unboxing video, but: How do you shoot the unboxing video of the D800 with the same D800

Thomas, you could film a 'birthing point-of-view' where you set yuor D800 recording video, pack it away, then unpack it. Then the first thing it 'sees' is its new daddy! You could even do it in front of a mirror.

Just one tidbit about the battery:
The EN-EL3e was used in the D300/D700 and has 7.4V, 1500mAh (=11.1Wh), 80g. It was rated for 1000/2500 shots in the D700 according to Cipa/Nikon standards
The EN-EL15 is used in the D7000/D800 and has 7.0V, 1900mAh (13.3Wh), 88g and is rated for 900/??00 shots in the D800 according to Cipa/Nikon standards
So we get a slight increase in power which does not translate into more shots. But it is generally an improvement if you use the on-board flash and/or VR. Both are heavy power gobblers and should profit from the increased capacity.

Looking forward to both of your findings.
It is an exciting time in Photography in terms of tools advancement. Now I just need to step up my artistic skill sets.

Of particular interest to me is focus and tracking of moving subjects. If the new generation make it significantly easier to lock on to the eyes of a raptor in flight, then it may be replacing my d300s. To be truthful, I'm not too interested in having 30+ megapixel images. I would probably drop the images down to more workable sizes from the start unless it really makes a difference when moderately cropping. I'm hoping that I don't get spoiled, and continue to "just get closer" and create stronger images. But it will be nice to have the option should I have no other choice.

My original hope was to improve on the low-light capture capabilities of my d700, but there is little else that the d800 offers that I find motivates me to retire it. But I am still hopeful that you will find some nice real-world advantages that haven't even been discussed yet.

Oh, and I'm REALLY interested in seeing how the TC-20e iii handles with my 70-200VRii when all that extra resolving power is in play! If it's really good, it just may replace my Sigma 150-500 OS as my hand-holdable bird in flight setup of choice. (I get some stunners with the Sigma, but seldom take it beyond 400mm, so I would not be missing much of that last 100mm...)

You realize of course that the d800 might just force me to re-evaluate every lens I have from my 50 and 85mm 1.4 lenses to my 300mm 2.8! I'm already expecting my Sigma to not make the cut, but I may be very surprised...

My test of the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VRII showed that even with only a 1.7x TC the lens is showing its limits on a D300. So on a D800 with 15% more linear resolving power a TC on the 70-200/2.8 will not really make you happy.
But as always a real-world test will show the truth.
Will be doing it when the body arrives...